An inside look into the Arab dictators' playbook

After the relatively swift triumphs of the Tunisian and
Egyptian revolutions in deposing their dictators earlier this year, other Arab
dictators drew a different set of lessons than their populations did.

Fed up with decades of repression, corruption, and the break
down of state institutions, as well as the complete loss of faith in any
meaningful political or social reforms in their societies, people across the
Arab world this spring have waged simultaneous mass movements to force sweeping
changes.

Arab autocrats, sustained for decades by the powerful
security state, were shocked and startled as they observed in horror the
dismantling of the security apparatuses in Tunisia and Egypt, facing fearless
populace willing to sacrifice their lives to liberate themselves from the yoke
of tyranny and regain their freedoms and dignity.

- Advertisement -

To their credit, in both the Tunisian and Egyptian models,
the armies refused to shoot at their people after the failure of the security
forces to clamp down. The popular uprisings spread across each country with
incredible determination and zeal as the fear barrier of the ruthless regimes
completely broke down.

Shortly after the fall of the Egyptian dictator, people
across the Arab world took to the streets in peaceful uprisings against their
long time repressive rulers. The
concurrent massive demonstrations were especially widespread in Yemen, Libya,
Syria, and Bahrain, against the decades-old repressive regimes of Muammar
Gaddhafi in Libya (41 years), Ali Saleh in Yemen (33 years), the Assad family in
Syria (Bashar and his father before him -- 40 years), and the minority Al-Khalifah
dynasty in Bahrain (230 years.)

The primary lesson learned by the Arab masses watching the
revolutions unfold in Tunisia and Egypt was that the people's collective power
and determination can ultimately triumph in the face of isolated regimes that
have been ruling them with an iron fist. Furthermore, they understood and
appreciated the power of peaceful change, not only as politically expedient but
perhaps more significantly as morally imperative. In the process, old cliche's
such as apathy and despair on the one hand, or armed struggle and violent
overthrow of regimes on the other, were abandoned and totally discredited.

However, the authoritarian regimes drew different lessons
from the Tunisian and Egyptian experience. They did not see the power and
determination of the people but the weakness of the regimes and fragility and
indecisiveness of its leaders.

- Advertisement -

In each case, though engulfed in its own particular
circumstances and distinct features, the overall framework of how each regime
dealt with its own popular uprising is strikingly similar. They all seem to be
operating from the same guide, which might be dubbed: "The Dictator's Manual for
Suppressing Popular Revolts."

As in the Tunisian and Egyptian models the first response of
each regime was to rely on the security forces to put a quick end to the
uprisings before they spread. When such attempts fail within the first few days,
the next step is to try to contain the demonstrations by embracing the demands
of the protesters while asking for a return to calm in order to implement
reforms.

The problem with these initial steps is that they are
perceived by the people as disingenuous and are almost always too late. Like
Tunisia and Egypt before them, in each of the cases in Yemen, Libya, Syria, or
Bahrain, the initial brutal response of the security forces had an adverse
effect and did not stop the protests. In fact, the increasing casualties in the
streets intensified the opposition and the revolts became widespread.

For instance, the initial demonstrations that started in
Benghazi in mid-February to protest the arrest of a human rights lawyer quickly
spread to western Libya, where they were met with brutality and repression.
Similarly the protests in Yemen the same week spread from Sanaa to the rest of
the country as Saleh's security forces ruthlessly cracked down on the
demonstrators. When the people of the southern city of Dar'aa in Syria protested
in mid-March calling for freedom and reforms, the protests quickly spread as the
Syrian army shortly thereafter surrounded the city killing dozens and arresting
hundreds of protesters.

In the next phase of the confrontation between the people and
the authoritarian regimes the dictators would call for dialogue and claim to
have embraced the calls for reforms. For example, within days of the fall of the
eastern city of Benghazi to the opposition, Gaddafi's son, Saiful Islam,
promised that if the protests ended then all demands were on the table. But then
he asserted that no reforms or dialogue would be initiated unless the protests
ended. President Saleh in Yemen made similar overtures to his people promising
to form a national unity government and initiate political reforms if the
protests ended.

In Syria the regime announced several steps for political
reforms and the end of the state of emergency, which had been in place for
almost a half century. The Syrian people held hope that their president would
announce, and immediately take steps for far-reaching constitutional and
political reforms.

But when the Syrian president addressed the parliament at the
end of March it became clear that the reforms embraced by the regime were
superficial and vague while requiring a significant amount of time to implement,
a ploy that seemed designed to contain the popular uprising. Moreover, the party
officials entrusted to propose and implement these reforms were themselves
people known to defend the status quo that has favored them for decades. The
pathetic performance of a bygone era of the Syrian parliament represented the
best evidence that the regime was immune to any real reforms.

- Advertisement -

As in Egypt, when the trick of calling for dialogue and the
embrace of a reform agenda fails to attract the people and the opposition groups
-- mostly marginalized for decades -- the regimes would then mobilize their
supporters to mount counter-demonstrations in the hopes of stemming the tide and
convince outside observers, especially Western countries that they are popular,
legitimate regimes, and still in charge.

However, many of the supporters of these regimes act like
goons, bullies, and criminals, as they beat up and abuse the opposition. Such
elements supporting the regimes include thousands of security officers or party
loyalists roaming the streets in civilian clothes. They were called baltagies in Egypt, balatega in Yemen and Shabbiha in Syria. Their main role is to
brutalize the people and punish them for their protests in a desperate attempt
to halt them. But often times, the end result is the opposite as the people link
these thugs to the regimes and become even more enraged.

In Libya people witnessed in horror as attorney Iman
Al-Obaidy was dragged from a hotel lobby by security officers as she was
describing her brutal gang rape a few days earlier. In Syria people were enraged
when they saw the body of 13-year-old Hamza Al-Khatib tortured and riddled with
bullets and his penis cut off. Before his body was returned to his family,
Al-Khatib was protesting in the city of Jiza in southern Syria few days earlier
before being arrested and brutally tortured by the security forces.